Music Theory vs Harmony

[Christian Miller]

So yea Christian isn't the harmony thing... about the musical connections between the Chord Chord Chord etc... and then how they related to the basic Reference... or context.

Well that’s how I think of it. But then I never studied classical harmony formally with a teacher like Jonah is I may well be missing some context but I did read Schoenberg years ago and a few other texts, some of which I found very helpful at the time for understanding standards etc.

so somewhat relevant to the OP - that stuff may well help for understanding how the progressions of the song move.

What is a bit different about looking at it from the point of view of counterpoint is that you are thinking about a typical outline melody line or voice leading outline that goes with a typical bass line and then maybe out into chords from there.

It’s more fixed but weirdly you see it jazz, which I was not expecting.

[MrCoconut]

It's all good. It's all relevant.
I'm currently reading/studying Schoenberg Fundamentals of Musical Composition(in preparation for future book deliveries)
and Bert Ligon's Connecting lines with Linear Harmony.
I also have books on Jazz Composition, Modern Jazz voicings and a number harmony books.
Barry Harris DVDs, Roni Ben Hur, and the inimitable Alan Kingstone.
Joseph Alexander's jazz Soloing compilation is also a great book and an excellent beginner book.
Plus I love Jazz blues. I think there's lots of creative unexplored space in jazz blues.
Also, Dirk's standards and lessons on this site are excellent.
My brain is melting but only slightly around the edges.
I've got many years of work ahead and I'm loving every minute.

[Jonah]

But then I never studied classical harmony formally with a teacher like Jonah is

My formal education is relatively limited.

Main source is just music - I play a lot of classical music either on lute or on piano (my skills are very limited on piano but enough to play something up to Schumann/Schubert fro my own pleasure). I play at home almost daily just for fun whenever I have time, and I listen a lot and go to concerts and like watching the scores... and i have a couple of friends - very deep guys, much more skillful and knowledgeable to talk about it... so it mostly comes from that.

As for jazz - it is like another pole of myself...
recently I had a chance to play duo gigs with another guitarists so I was very much into playing and practicing things in jazz... but once the project was over I slowly went back to classical.

One thing that i really enjoy about playing jazz is that it gives me a lot of personal freedom... in the very heart of it I do not play jazz when i play it but I play some kind of improvized music or rather search for it with a guitar in hands... momentary feeling of creation, of spontaneous interaction with another player - very unique - something like that.

Once in a while i feel like really miss something I had with jazz and begin to play more jazz... and then suddenly I hear Mozart or Weiss somewhere and feel like it is there now where I should be and I get there... great classical music tells and teaches many things about life you know...

[pauln]

I played clarinet from the third through tenth grade and took classical piano lessons at a college music department from fifth through tenth grade; everything was about learning to read music and learning to play increasingly difficult music. At no time was music ever discussed as scales, chords, and progressions. Any understanding of harmony was incidental to reading and playing. I've always understood "music theory" as learning formal music notation. What we discuss around here is really "harmony".

[Christian Miller]

I mean this is theory, right?
Neo-Riemannian theory - Wikipedia

It's absolutely bobbins IMO but the people who do this stuff are professional music theorists

[Jonah]

I played clarinet from the third through tenth grade and took classical piano lessons at a college music department from fifth through tenth grade; everything was about learning to read music and learning to play increasingly difficult music. At no time was music ever discussed as scales, chords, and progressions. Any understanding of harmony was incidental to reading and playing. I've always understood "music theory" as learning formal music notation. What we discuss around here is really "harmony".

Through personal experience I found out that forma musical education is so different in different countries.

But mostly it seems when it is much standardized (like state programs and schools) it really has a tendency to teach reading, and to teach some cliches.
Here it may seem very solid and fundamental from outside but in reality kids can solve harmonic tasks on paper but do not hear them, play music from the text but do not understand it and after graduating from 7 years cours (at the age of 15) they can play a couple of pieces learnt by heart and that they will forget in a year.
Generally it turns out that all depends on particular teacher.

I heard about some Japanese system that is also used in some institutions in US but I can't remember how it is called.
It is based mostly on teaching by ear at the beginning and only later they add reading and formal theory.

[Jonah]

I mean this is theory, right?
Neo-Riemannian theory - Wikipedia

It's absolutely bobbins IMO but the people who do this stuff are professional music theorists

I think one of the problems of our days is that principles of the exact sciences were extrapolated to humanitarian and artistic discipline.
That created a whole bunch of art historians, musicologists ets. that can get an authority and comfortable living using typical academic tools: publications, conferences and so on.

The age of art critics like Kenneth Clarke or John Ruskin who were very good practical artists and who shared their thought in individual non-standardized language without references and looking around what the scientific community would think - this age is gone.

I know musicologidts who can hardly play piano and cannot compose simple fugue? How can it be? They are succesful, they recieve grants, they have stable position...

My friend, she is econimist but she is an amateur musician and music admirer, she wrote once a very good article on very particular subject and sent to a musical magazine.
They said the article was fine but they cannot publish it because she has no credentials and publishing an article of economist on music is impossible.

That system deserves to be destroyed.

[Litterick]

I think one of the problems of our days is that principles of the exact sciences were extrapolated to humanitarian and artistic discipline.
That created a whole bunch of art historians, musicologists ets. that can get an authority and comfortable living using typical academic tools: publications, conferences and so on.

The age of art critics like Kenneth Clarke or John Ruskin who were very good practical artists and who shared their thought in individual non-standardized language without references and looking around what the scientific community would think - this age is gone.

I know musicologidts who can hardly play piano and cannot compose simple fugue? How can it be? They are succesful, they recieve grants, they have stable position...

My friend, she is econimist but she is an amateur musician and music admirer, she wrote once a very good article on very particular subject and sent to a musical magazine.
They said the article was fine but they cannot publish it because she has no credentials and publishing an article of economist on music is impossible.

That system deserves to be destroyed.

An art historian writes:

Art history is an academic discipline. Like any other, it uses academic methods, such as backing assertions with citations – rather than making unsubstantiated claims. What the scientific community might think is of no interest.

Ruskin, who did some drawing, wrote before art history had been established as a discipline. Kenneth Clark, who was not an artist, wrote many academic books and papers, while holding a job as Director of the National Gallery in London.

It is not a requirement that one must be able to paint or compose to be able to write about art or music.

Critics can still be found writing in many websites, magazines and newspapers. Most have an academic education that allows them to make informed commentary about art or music.

[MrCoconut]

Music theory explains what a composer created.
It does not have the ability to explain how the composer created.
Nor does it teach one how to compose or create.
What are your reasons for wanting to learn theory?
To be a better musician?
To no longer just feel like a trained monkey? (me)
To help you improvise?
I personally hope to use it to get music ideas from my head to my instrument
without destroying what I'm hearing in my head in the process.
Which is currently what seems to happen.
I wake up with a phrase in my head and in trying get it out I screw it up.

Can knowing more theory help me do that?
Composition?
Harmony?
All of the above?

I don't know.
I'm beginning to think it's just something I need to keep trying to do
and eventually I'll get better at the brain to guitar transcribing.

[pauln]

I don't know.
I'm beginning to think it's just something I need to keep trying to do
and eventually I'll get better at the brain to guitar transcribing.

I imagine there are lots of people like me, who do not use music theory in order to generate musical ideas, but rather only use it after the fact to satisfy curiosity or classify or order ideas composed or improvised without using theory.

That is, instead of learning the theory names of things up front that one has not played yet, and hunting for constructions or contexts within which to employ them, one instead casually learns their names only after having oneself invented or discovered them and learned how they may apply to particular song contexts... so the theory names, relationships, and applications just naturally back fill from behind.

[Reg]

Yea Mr coco... When one understands theory harmony counterpoint rhythm etc... You can save what usually takes a lifetime in music. You'll be able to see and understand what you hear and you'll be able verbally talk about and explain the musical organization of what you hear... or think you hear.

Theory can and does help and teach one to create... and compose music. It can answer most of your questions and help you ask the right questions. Even with help... you still need to hear something, but it is also very easy to take a simple idea and create beautiful music, or whatever you want to compose or perform. And you'll have the skills to do it live without having to memorize etc...

I've watched on this forum opinions change... Most of use are not super beings, so tying to compare or think that we can on our own get it together because others have is silly.

[MrCoconut]

I think music theory is fascinating. I plan to continue studying in all areas.
There's also a lot of videos that talk about harmonic analysis that I think will be very helpful.
Speaking of which, the Dallin book should be here tomorrow.
Reg, if you're still willing to help, how should we/I proceed?

[Christian Miller]

An art historian writes:

Art history is an academic discipline. Like any other, it uses academic methods, such as backing assertions with citations – rather than making unsubstantiated claims. What the scientific community might think is of no interest.

Ruskin, who did some drawing, wrote before art history had been established as a discipline. Kenneth Clark, who was not an artist, wrote many academic books and papers, while holding a job as Director of the National Gallery in London.

It is not a requirement that one must be able to paint or compose to be able to write about art or music.

Critics can still be found writing in many websites, magazines and newspapers. Most have an academic education that allows them to make informed commentary about art or music.

Just off a masters in music education, when I checked up on the citations on this or that academic paper (to try and expand my reading) and found that half of the time they either didn’t say what the author said they did or that the statement was placed out of context. It was pretty shocking actually.

I don’t think anyone actually reads anything properly. You skim the texts because you are building an argument. I find the whole thing a bit dishonest tbh. If you are in a position of seniority who calls you on your bullshit?

Unless it’s a peer reviewed study of some kind, I’m pretty skeptical about a lot of this kind of academic work. I wouldn’t take any pronouncement by any academic on music with much seriousness at face value. I certainly don’t feel I’m cut out for a PhD in the humanities…

Furthermore the more I got into the masters the less it had to do with teaching. All you can do beyond this level is research….

don’t get the started on the content of a lot these music education papers either: for example, apparently jazz doesn’t have an aesthetic because there are no scores. To which I say ‘tell me you don’t like jazz without saying you don’t like jazz.’

There’s also been imo a lot of good work but that’s only because I think it’s good because it agrees with what I already think, it’s all very slippery.

I suppose that’s the take away, healthy skepticism, critical reading, self reflection.

[Jonah]

An art historian writes:

Art history is an academic discipline. Like any other, it uses academic methods, such as backing assertions with citations – rather than making unsubstantiated claims. What the scientific community might think is of no interest.

Ruskin, who did some drawing, wrote before art history had been established as a discipline. Kenneth Clark, who was not an artist, wrote many academic books and papers, while holding a job as Director of the National Gallery in London.

It is not a requirement that one must be able to paint or compose to be able to write about art or music.

Critics can still be found writing in many websites, magazines and newspapers. Most have an academic education that allows them to make informed commentary about art or music.

I do not deny the imortance of solid general education. And Yes, it is true that Ruskin (and to some degree even Clark - at least some of his works were in this tradition) wrote their works before art history was established as an academic discipline.

Nevertheress I think this establishment was not for the better.

I think it is not the only reason through, it is major changes in culture. The people involved in it those days were often much more versatile and more universally educated. They spoke and read many languages usually, they often were advanced amateur musicians, had knowledge in exat sciences, not to mention world literature. And that was not some obligatory knowledge - that was part of their universe. I had a chance to know a couple of persons (one of them art historian, specializing in Tintoretto) of that 'old school' European type... they were gardners and scientists, played Schubert quartets with friends twice a week, easily and appropriately quoted Dante, Home, and Villon in originals and all that without pretentions and ambitions, with dignity and modesty.


I do not discard all the art critics/historians of later period of course. Recently I read some article by Arras that I liked.
I really liked history books (they are not directly on arts) by Marcello Simonetta, Michel Pastoureau on colours history, Patrick Barbier on baroque opera history etc.

But on the other hand I come across the books where most of the book is dedicated to polemic with attributions and other art historians, and where exact science principles are applied thoroughly.

In a word they try to be stricly objective and provide scientifically proved facts using respective language.

And I think it is wrong for humanitarian sciences and especially for arts. Opinion on art of history should be subjective - only subjectiveness makes all the factual material valid.
It does not mean it should not be well-informed and educated though.

It is not a requirement that one must be able to paint or compose to be able to write about art or music.

I think it is highly desireable.

[Litterick]

Just off a masters in music education, when I checked up on the citations on this or that academic paper (to try and expand my reading) and found that half of the time they either didn’t say what the author said they did or that the statement was placed out of context. It was pretty shocking actually.

I don’t think anyone actually reads anything properly. You skim the texts because you are building an argument. I find the whole thing a bit dishonest tbh. If you are in a position of seniority who calls you on your bullshit?

Unless it’s a peer reviewed study of some kind, I’m pretty skeptical about a lot of this kind of academic work. I wouldn’t take any pronouncement by any academic on music with much seriousness at face value. I certainly don’t feel I’m cut out for a PhD in the humanities…

Furthermore the more I got into the masters the less it had to do with teaching. All you can do beyond this level is research….

don’t get the started on the content of a lot these music education papers either: for example, apparently jazz doesn’t have an aesthetic because there are no scores. To which I say ‘tell me you don’t like jazz without saying you don’t like jazz.’

There’s also been imo a lot of good work but that’s only because I think it’s good because it agrees with what I already think, it’s all very slippery.

I suppose that’s the take away, healthy skepticism, critical reading, self reflection.

My PhD was all about architectural writing. I found a lot of sloppy citations, bias and downright dishonesty – in academic works. The laymen I studied were all quite honest.

Academia has been corrupted by the papers-mean-prizes system of ratings. I have written papers for academics who were to busy to fulfil their contractural requirements to produce a certain number of publications each year.

Many academics in the humanities do not like what they study. They do it for professional reasons, or because their supervisors had steered them in a particular direction. And PhDs are hard work. Doctoral study in the School of Music at Auckland seemed to me very fraught. I had a remarkably easy time in Architecture, because nobody really knew what I was doing, and so could not interfere.

[Reg]

I think music theory is fascinating. I plan to continue studying in all areas.
There's also a lot of videos that talk about harmonic analysis that I think will be very helpful.
Speaking of which, the Dallin book should be here tomorrow.
Reg, if you're still willing to help, how should we/I proceed?

Just start.... ask anything you want. Try and not go down the endless rabbit hole music ed. can lead you to.

How well do you play etc...it's difficult to talk about running when one is still learning to walk. Don't take my questions wrong... just don't want you to get caught or involved in the details and lose sight of the bigger picture. Sometimes understandings may be limited and even wrong as time moves on.LOL. Looking forward to helping anyway I can.
Reg

[Christian Miller]

But on the other hand I come across the books where most of the book is dedicated to polemic with attributions and other art historians, and where exact science principles are applied thoroughly.

In a word they try to be stricly objective and provide scientifically proved facts using respective language.

So, scientism in other words...

Having once been involved with actual science, I find nothing more irritating.

If people want to do this why don't they just go do a STEM subject? (Of course they know that in that world their theories will be put to the test.)

[MrCoconut]

Just start.... ask anything you want. Try and not go down the endless rabbit hole music ed. can lead you to.

How well do you play etc...it's difficult to talk about running when one is still learning to walk. Don't take my questions wrong... just don't want you to get caught or involved in the details and lose sight of the bigger picture. Sometimes understandings may be limited and even wrong as time moves on.LOL. Looking forward to helping anyway I can.
Reg

Here's something I recorded back in my thumbpickin days.
It's a song written by Chet Atkins' side man Paul Yandell.
It sure ain't jazz.

[Litterick]

So, scientism in other words...

Having once been involved with actual science, I find nothing more irritating.

If people want to do this why don't they just go do a STEM subject? (Of course they know that in that world their theories will be put to the test.)

Fret not. I have studied art history for years. I can assure the discipline is nothing like science, does not try to emulate science and, in fact, is barely aware of the existence of science. Yes, art historians cite each other, with footnotes, but that is what scholars in all subjects do. Art historians try to be objective, of course, but scientifically proven facts are not their concern.

[Litterick]

But on the other hand I come across the books where most of the book is dedicated to polemic with attributions and other art historians, and where exact science principles are applied thoroughly.

In a word they try to be stricly objective and provide scientifically proved facts using respective language.

And I think it is wrong for humanitarian sciences and especially for arts. Opinion on art of history should be subjective - only subjectiveness makes all the factual material valid.
It does not mean it should not be well-informed and educated though.

I think it is highly desireable.

Many critics are writing at present. They will provide subjective opinions, often well-written, informative and entertaining. But art history is an academic discipline which must maintain academic standards. It does not pretend or attempt to be a science, but it is rational. Art historians must acknowledge and engage with the work of their predecessors and peers; hence the polemic and attribution. Otherwise, they would giving no more than opinions.

[Reg]

Here's something I recorded back in my thumbpickin days.
It's a song written by Chet Atkins' side man Paul Yandell.
It sure ain't jazz.

LOL that's was cool man. You can perform.... Loved it Thanks for sample. Now I have a reference from which I can BS from. It's your thread... man. don't worry about the serious conversations. They will fade. Where do you want to start... Functional concepts applied to jazz... serious composition I'm open to whatever
thanks for posting Joe
Reg

[Jonah]

Many critics are writing at present. They will provide subjective opinions, often well-written, informative and entertaining. But art history is an academic discipline which must maintain academic standards. It does not pretend or attempt to be a science, but it is rational. Art historians must acknowledge and engage with the work of their predecessors and peers; hence the polemic and attribution. Otherwise, they would giving no more than opinions.

I think I do not need anything more than opinions - knowledgeable opinions.
I mean one should know its subject deeply and make an opinion. Of course it should be at least a bit more than what we call 'kitchen talk' here... I mean it should be worth publishing.
As for 'it does not pretend to be science' - well, I understand yu do it from inside and supposedly I should accet it but still I have doubts. It is possible that we just see things and notions differently - I do not want to argue about it.

It is also interesting that the discipline is called 'art history' in English - the idea of history (even subconciously) puts it more into linear/historic perspective and puts more stress on objective thinking (as history as a science (and it pretends to be one) often referes to objects).

In other languages I know it is called rather 'knowledge on/of art' (or investigation on art) - much broader name. Though 'art history' is also used occasionally.

[Christian Miller]

I think I do not need anything more than opinions - knowledgeable opinions.
I mean one should know its subject deeply and make an opinion. Of course it should be at least a bit more than what we call 'kitchen talk' here... I mean it should be worth publishing.
As for 'it does not pretend to be science' - well, I understand yu do it from inside and supposedly I should accet it but still I have doubts. It is possible that we just see things and notions differently - I do not want to argue about it.

It is also interesting that the discipline is called 'art history' in English - the idea of history (even subconciously) puts it more into linear/historic perspective and puts more stress on objective thinking (as history as a science (and it pretends to be one) often referes to objects).

In other languages I know it is called rather 'knowledge on/of art' (or investigation on art) - much broader name. Though 'art history' is also used occasionally.

yeah I agree. The kind of opinions I enjoy are substantiated in someone’s knowledge and understanding, but in the end they are all subjective.

In music the history I get the sense that music has been pressed into the service of 19th and 20th century nationalism for instance; the narrative of classical music history we most commonly learn at school (probably less so these days) is basically German centric in terms of the language if not the nation state . (I’m assuming this has something to do with the Bismarck era but lack the history to make meaningful comments on that.)

It’s clearly a compelling narrative because the German music tradition is obviously incredibly strong, but some scholars have also argued that this narrative tends to minimise the central importance of Italy to 18th century music - we think of Mozart and Haydn but not Paisiello or Durante who were tremendously important in their day. Saleiri is vilified by the poets as the bitter rival of Mozart. And so on.

This has an effect on music theory. Italian approaches to composition were minimised and German approaches, such as the theories of Reimann championed by the academies - even in Italy (well Milan anyway who probably wanted to separate themselves culturally from the heritage of Naples.) Check the biography of Verdi for instance to see how this played out.

The books Reg namechecks above mostly come from that tradition. They are all the standard texts which shows how influential German-speaking thinkers on music were.

And all of that without going outside the Western canon. There are similar narratives to be unpicked in jazz. I think these narratives and counter narratives are bound to continue and I enjoy it.

[Tal_175]

‘Harmony is a fairy story told about counterpoint’

I find it more compelling to think of harmony as consisting of vertical snapshots of an imaginary counterpoint arrangement.

[Christian Miller]

I find it more compelling to think of harmony as consisting of vertical snapshots of an imaginary counterpoint arrangement.

Actually it’s the harmony that’s imaginary and the counterpoint that is real (and despite what I said about scientism I believe I can prove it lol)